- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Michael, how much do you think “global average temperature”* could rise without becoming a threat?
* (a technical term, remember.)
Sorry Clark but I can not give an answer to your question.
I know it is hot in Spain but people still live in Spain. I have friends who moved to Spain, maybe they like it very hot?
People live in Libya, apparently, it is very hot in Libya. If you have a prime rain forest in the equatorial zone, the temperature is always close to 31 degrees Celsius.
The forest makes its own climate, no help needed from humans.MN: “I know it is hot in Spain but people still live in Spain.”
// Face-palm //
When a temperature is taken, it is taken “in the shade”
Forests give shade, in the winter in a temperate forest it is warmer in the forest, than out in a field.
In the summer, in the forest, it is cooler than out in the field.
Allowing forests to grow, is good on so many levels.
I expect when agriculture, took off, in Lebanon/Palestine/Syria/Turkey/Mesopotamia, that the removal of the local forests, for timber and to create fields, massively, locally increased the temperature, in the summer, in those fields.
I expect it also caused aridification, soil run off and other poor outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AridificationBut almost certainly, not a noticeable increase in world temperature.
People can do harm to their local environment, without greatly impacting the world temperature.Collapse of the Nazca civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neltuma_pallidaIt has been suggested that the huarango tree, held everything together.
The flowers attracted the bees, which the locals obtained honey and wax.
The bees pollinated the Nazca crops.
The spikes were used to make dead hedges, to keep out herbivores.
The timber was very useful for cooking fuel, also for charcoal making. The trees held the structure of the soil together, the soil held the microbes.
When the Nazca cut down their last few trees, the bees stopped coming, the soil died and blew away and so was that civilization blown away.
Nothing to do with too much Carbon dioxide in the air.
People, still degraded their own locality.Kew Gardens have a programme, to reclaim deserts by populating deserts with huarango
Michael, if you can’t answer that question, how can you possibly claim that the ongoing increase is safe? The increase so far could be a degree, or half a degree, or a tenth of a degree from utter disaster!
It’s all very well saying that forests or huarango could stabilise “global average temperature” (t.t.), but such things take time to grow. The world has to cope from how it is now, not some idealised world where humans hadn’t massively deforested it.
I’ll warn you Michael, I have a whole load of questions like that one, and I’m going to ask them.
And your example of the Nazca just proves that humans can catastrophically wreck their own climate!
I wonder if there were Nazca like me saying “FFS, stop cutting down the trees, we’re courting disaster!”, and Nazca like you saying “our economy will collapse without the timber, I’m not scared, it’ll all be fine”?
Clark
China, USA, India, Russia
none at all bothered by Global Warming.
Between them they release the majority of the Carbon, back in to the air.
U.K. slightly less than one percent, less now, we no longer use coal or make steel.
How much should we degrade our lives in the U.K. to make no effective difference to the climate of the world?
If we in the U.K. all went naked and ate only vegtables, in would have no effect on the climate of the world.
It does nt matter what the science says or does not say.
People do not want what you are selling.The reason temperature is stable in equatorial forest is because ‘equatorial’ means “on or near the equator”, and there is little seasonal variation in sunlight near the equator; it’s twelve hours day, twelve hours night all year round, and the sun passes nearly overhead at midday, every day.
Michael, whether certain countries limit their emissions or not has absolutely no bearing upon whether climate change is safe or not. True?
You really don’t seem to think very clearly Michael.
And you keep making claims that are untrue. For instance, China has the highest proportion of low emissions energy of any large country, by far, and their plans for more are by far the most ambitious too.
And you make false assumptions about my thinking too, Michael. You don’t know what my opinions are about Britain’s net zero policy, nor why I hold them, because you show no interest in anyone’s opinions but your own, and the ones promoted by your favoured neoliberal think tanks.
Do you like Trump’s fascism as well as his denial of climate change?
Cat got your tongue?
Clark – why are you bothering with someone who is obviously – as proven time and again, even on this very page – profoundly ignorant on the subject, and shows zero interest or even good faith in learning about the truth?
That’s the biggest mystery here.
Glenn_nl, because Michael has an eight year old granddaughter.
Glenn_nl, Michael says that people don’t care about climate catastrophe. What I suspect is really the case is that no one dare mention their fears or concerns within earshot of Michael. They just have to nod and pretend to agree like we’re expected to hear and defer to his supposedly greater wisdom, or get lectured about cherry picked natural history and accused of being brainwashed by, er, Ed Miliband, isn’t it? I’m not too hot on political celebrities.
Of course, Clark, I understand that perfectly well. But you’re wasting time and energy here, which I presume even you don’t have in infinite quantities.
I have no doubt that someone so thoroughly afflicted by the Kruger-Dunning effect has been observed, by their nearest, to have strong views concerning which they have zero understanding on pretty much any given issue. Are you really worried that a person with such a well earned reputation holds great influence?
We’re not talking about someone with a huge platform here, of course – that would be a little different. It seems singularly unproductive trying to discuss something with someone who’s mind is obviously made up, about something they won’t discuss.
Glenn_nl, I should also point out that yesterday, over on the Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy) forum, you posted:
– “…not a single denialist has had the courage to stick around to discuss the point. Not one.”
But there is one, namely michael; he just got confined to this forum by the mods, probably to simplify moderation.
I find michael to be a rather fascinating enigma. He lives a very frugal life, he’s opposed to the modern rampant commercialism, he clearly loves nature, he doesn’t even capitalise his own name. Yet to inform himself he turns to free market think tanks composed of greedy braggarts eagerly trashing all he holds dear in pursuit of unlimited “economic growth” to line their own pockets and feather their own nests. They have oodles of money and shamelessly tell lies that can be exposed with a moment’s reflection, yet still michael trusts them. Why??
If I could understand michael’s thinking I could gain insight into maybe 25% or more of the population and the ongoing massive failure of democracy.
Sir Keir Rodney Starmer to offer to buy Coal, for China to make steel in England.
Sir Keir has come to understand, that in the United Kingdom, we will need a lot of steel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp311nr7w34oIn Cumbria we were supposed to be opening a new Coal mine, i think that idea has been shelved, probably because of Net Zero?
“The U.K.’s plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria
On December 7th 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities approved the Whitehaven mine in Cumbria, making it the first coal mine approved in the U.K. for the past 30 years, developed by West Cumbria Mining Limited (WCML).”One day, even the Labour Party will recognise some level of reality.
Clark, that is not completely true, many of my fellow Volunteers, especially the better educated ones, almost completely buy into Global Warming , however it does not stop any of them for flying to exotic places for their holidays.
They do tend to behave fairly modestly, like wearing old clothes and bringing home made sarnies, on a Tuesday.
Many seem to go to South or Central America for their holidays.
I think they can see confliction in their own actions.April 9, 2025 at 20:49
Quote Clark
“It’s all very well saying that forests or huarango could stabilise “global average temperature” (t.t.), but such things take time to grow. The world has to cope from how it is now, not some idealised world where humans hadn’t massively deforested it.I’ll warn you Michael, I have a whole load of questions like that one, and I’m going to ask them.”
Clark, no,
I am not saying that planting of huarango could stabilise global average temperature.
All I have suggested is that removing the trees in an arid environment, causes to soil to desiccate.
That tends to kill the soil microbes. The soil then blows away, making that place unsuitable for humans.Clark, I might has misread that post of yours, so I will try to amend my reply.
When the great forests first came about, they locked up massive amounts of Carbon dioxide, as Carbon, within the structure of those trees. There was nothing that could break down Lignin.
As we now know, that’s is when the bulk of the Coal was put down.
I think it took tens of millions of years before breakers of Lignin came into being.
These events changed the atmosphere.
Later, when the great Northern Conifer forests spread across North America and Eurasia, again, lre quantities of Carbon were drawn out of the air and into those trees.
However, this storing of Carbon in the trees was mostly short lived, if the trees burned or died and rotted, that Carbon was returned to the air.
The Short Carbon Cycle.
However the effect was to reduce how much Carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere.
Later when the Equatorial, mostly flowering trees forests came into being, about one hundred million years ago, even more Carbon was drawn out of the atmosphere. Probably without the evolution of the Angiosperms, Antarctica would not have started to freeze over about 35,000,000 years ago and the Ice Age, we are still in might not have happened.So, if we did allow the regrowing of huge forests world wide, that would take in ( Short Carbon Cycle) huge quantities of Carbon dioxide. However, there are now 8,000,000,000 people alive. one of Shibboleth’s points.
Michael, I’m all for rewilding, and it’s doable.
Why do you keep singling out the Labour Party? Like British emissions, it’s at most a minor part of the problem globally. And what’s your alternative?
